Hot Topics:

Eyes on Beacon Hill as Lowell High vote nears

Concern over pace of Cawley fields legislation; no delay seen in council design decision

By Todd Feathers, tfeathers@lowellsun.com

Updated:
06/04/2017 09:47:20 AM EDT

LOWELL -- All the pieces are beginning to fall into place for the City Council's upcoming vote to decide where the new high school will be built, although there's disagreement over whether legislation at the Statehouse is keeping pace.

Lowell's three House members, Tom Golden, Dave Nangle and Rady Mom, and one senator, Eileen Donoghue, have no role in the decision-making process for the high school. But the city has asked them to shepherd through legislation that would clear the path for the school to be built at Cawley Stadium, if that's the council's choice.

That bill, known as a home-rule petition, was received by Nangle's office on March 31 and filed in the House on April 3. it went through the appropriate committees, including Bills on Third Reading, and was engrossed by the House on May 15.

On the same day the House acted, the bill went to the Senate where, according to a timeline provided by the Senate clerk, "It appears no formal process has been taken in the Senate."

Donoghue said a lot of progress is being made, despite what the timeline states.

Donoghue said she and the Senate are waiting on the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) to approve the city's plan to replace the fields in question before moving the bill forward.

"You have to go through the details to get the final legislation, because it's Article 97," she said. "There's no delay.

Advertisement

"

Regardless of when the legislation -- which removes conservation restrictions on fields at Cawley Stadium -- is passed, it will not delay the City Council's ability to select a preferred design for the high school on June 13. After it is engrossed by the Senate, both bodies must still enact it on a roll call vote.

"I can't speak for the Senate, but on the House side we were asked by the city manager and the city administration to expedite this," said Nangle, adding, "I guess they might do things a little different (in the Senate). I just wish that it was done more expeditiously."

EOEEA has said it might withhold future funding from any municipality that removes conservation restrictions, which were created under Article 97 of the state constitution, without receiving the agency's stamp of approval on plans to replicate the land elsewhere.

The Legislature could pass Lowell's home-rule petition without EOEEA approval, but city officials have been adamant that they do not want to jeopardize their standing with the agency.

EOEEA gave preliminary approval to Lowell on May 19, but the field replication plan hasn't been formally accepted. It is still possible, although unlikely, Donoghue said, that something could change.

The wait to bring the bill to committee in the Senate "has all been about simply getting the right language and everybody is working double time on this," said Donoghue, who has attended meetings between the EOEEA and Lowell officials working together to craft the language.

When the bill made its way through the House, it contained no language about the specific land that would be offered up to replace the Cawley fields. It did include a provision allowing the Legislature to add language to that effect as it became available.

"House counsel went through this with a fine-toothed comb and had no issues with it," Nangle said.

Both Nangle and Golden pointed out that EOEEA doesn't have any authority to dictate what the Legislature can or cannot pass.

According to the Office of the Senate Counsel, it is common practice to seek comment from affected agencies because it can be illuminating and the governor may turn to those agencies for advice when considering a veto.

One thing all members of the Lowell delegation agree on: The home-rule petition will almost certainly become law and its status shouldn't affect the City Council's decision.

"We could move this, we should move this, and just get it done with," Golden said, but "I don't think having Article 97 completed by this time is either a hindrance or a help."

Follow Todd Feathers on Twitter @ToddFeathers.

Timeline of Article 97 bill

* March 31 -- Received by Rep. Nangle's office via mail

* April 3 --Filed by Rep. Nangle's office, with co-sponsors

* April 13 --Referred to the committee on House Rules

* April 24 -- Reported, referred to the committee on Joint Rules, reported, rules suspended and referred to the committee on Municipalities and Regional Government

* April 27 -- State Senate concurred

* May 4 -- House bill reported favorably by committee as changed and referred to the committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling

* May 8 -- House Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting for a second reading

* May 11 -- House: Read second and ordered to a third reading

* May 15 -- House: Read third (title changed), amended and passed to be engrossed (Papers transmitted after House action to the Senate Clerk. It appears no formal process has been taken in the Senate.)

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sun. So keep it civil.